It has been over two decades since the Japanese practice of enforced sexual slavery began to receive widespread attention. Yet despite numerous international efforts to urge Japan to squarely acknowledge its moral and legal responsibility, there has been no meaningful progress to resolve this matter. This work revisits the issue of enforced sexual slavery as it stands today. The Japanese practice of enforced sexual slavery was a clear violation of international law at the time. Therefore, individual victims have valid legal claims for reparation against the Japanese government. The first half of this article reconfirms the illegality of the practice of enforced sexual slavery. The remainder summarizes and vindicates the claims of the victims once again. This research suggests how to remedy the victims’ rights and discusses how to implement reparation. It also contends that Japan owes reparations and legitimate remedial measures to the victims that go beyond monetary compensation in line with the rules of contemporary international law.

China has made great achievements in space activities in recent years. While emphasizing the principle of self-independence, China also acknowledges the importance of space cooperation. As early as 2001, China indicated its interest in joining the International Space Station. However, no substantive progress has been made concerning China’s participation thus far. This may be a result of political and economic, rather than legal and technical, considerations. There is no doubt that China’s participation shall contribute to the sustainable development of the ISS. China’s participation could also offer an excellent opportunity to reexamine the 1998 framework and clarify or improve certain provisions that exist in the current regime. While technologically ready for participation, China should start considering possible legal issues that may arise from its participation in the ISS project. This article takes up the challenging task of identifying potential legal issues that may arise in the course of China’s participation in the ISS and offers suggestions for a future cooperative legal framework regarding the ISS.

China’s straight baseline regime deviates from the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea in a number of ways. Such discrepancies are likely to induce legal and political conflicts between countries, and also the settlement of which would not be easy, in particular, among the East Asian countries. In consideration of this point, the legal issues surrounding China’s straight baselines and basepoints should be analyzed and evaluated not only from the perspectives of UNCLOS, but also through comparative analyses based on customary international law, State practices, and special circumstances. Many of China’s State practices and laws based on straight baselines are neither in accordance with international laws, nor generally recognized as being in accordance with the international law of the sea. This paper provides important legal insights into China’s straight baselines, which are unlawful from the perspectives of UNCLOS and State practices, and, in addition, suggest desirable ways to solve the problems in international laws.

The South China Sea is a semi-enclosed sea with a complex set of territorial claims by a number of Southeast Asian nations and China being the dominant claimant country. The United States is not a party to such claims. However, the US has great concerns pertaining to peace and stability of the region as far as freedom of navigation in the SCS is concerned, which has significant repercussions for its strategic interests. In addition to the utilization of the SCS as an important international trade route, the US is also committed to protect the interests of its allies in the region, as well as those of its companies involved in offshore hydrocarbon activities. In the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attack, the dynamics of a new world order push the US to strengthen its presence in the region in order to combat any security threats against its interests. This article investigates China-US relations in the SCS and highlights the law of the sea prescriptions that facilitate the understanding of the legal nature of the tensions between China and the US.

This article proposes the principle of human dignity as an indispensable requirement for sustainable regional economic integration, especially in East Asia. The contribution of free trade to economic growth and development is widely acknowledged. The economic survival of workers and farmers lacking international competitiveness has been, however, endangered, because of the expansion of trade liberalization and investment based on economic integration. Economic integration that ensures human dignity will promote successful and sustainable regional economic integration, by balancing economic prosperity and social integration. In this context, this article reviews the value and concept of human dignity as a goal and principle for regional economic integration. The author contends that neither sustainable prosperity nor a high level of economic development is itself a goal of economic integration, but merely a means by which to improve human dignity. Economic integration should, therefore, serve not only to maintain sustainable prosperity, but also to maximize human dignity.

Global trading regimes are currently undergoing significant changes. It is most vividly shown in the recent spread of FTAs and the surge of protectionism. These fast changes pose new challenges to many countries in terms of formulating and implementing their respective trade policies. The increasing confrontation between the United States and China in trade sectors now operates as a multiplier and accelerator of this fast-changing global trade landscape. Recent disputes between the two have underscored fundamental differences in understandings of the legal framework of the WTO Agreements and the nature of the obligations as Members, thereby further raising questions about the reinvigoration of multilateralism. The two countries’ retaliatory initiation of trade disputes against each other also involves third countries because of legal requirements and other considerations. The Sino-US trade disputes are thus not merely confrontation between the two largest trading partners; instead they carry wider systemic implications for both other countries and global trading regimes in transition.

The debate on whether antidumping law should be integrated into competition law is a relatively new but very significant one. Building on prior scholarship, this paper attempts to contribute to the debate by reexamining the fundamental justification of antidumping law. An exploration into the economic theories of dumping and the evolution of antidumping law indicates that the current antidumping system neither serves the broad goal of preventing ‘unfair trade’ nor functions as a ‘quasi-safeguard’ mechanism. The only rationale for antidumping law is that it deals with international predatory dumping. Modern competition rules target the same predatory conduct but they are more meticulous than antidumping law and are less susceptible to protectionist abuse. In light of this, the paper advocates the substitution of antidumping law by competition law. To achieve this, the paper suggests a gradual approach. Substitution could first be achieved in bilateral and regional trade areas before being implemented at the level of WTO.

The implementation system of the recommendations and rulings of the Dispute Settlement Body is an important component of the WTO dispute settlement procedure. Where there is any disagreement between disputing parties as to the existence or consistency with a covered agreement of measures taken to comply with the recommendations and rulings, a winning party may refer the matter to a compliance panel and the Appellate Body. If a losing party is found to have failed to comply with the recommendations and rulings, DSB may authorize the winning party to retaliate. This article analyzes the implementation system of the WTO dispute settlement procedure in comparison with other systems of ‘second-order’ compliance in international law. Also, attention will be directed to the relationship between the WTO retaliation and countermeasures in general international law. Countermeasures under the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, in particular, have a legal nature akin to that of countermeasures under the law of State responsibility.

The Sino-South Korea fisheries dispute is becoming increasingly intensified in recent years with occasional violent conflicts. The factors leading to this present situation include unsettled maritime delimitation, diminishing fishery resources, difficult relocation of Chinese fishermen, and the Korean coastguard’s rigidity, indifference, and even illegality in law enforcement. In order to solve the Sino-South Korean fisheries dispute, China should make efforts to improve its supporting measures applicable to the fishery industry, promote bilateral cooperation with South Korea, and establish a joint maritime enforcement mechanism.

The problem of illegal Chinese fishing and Chinese fishermen’s violent resistance to Korean law enforcement in the Yellow Sea have been a long-standing point at issue between Korea and China. It is not merely a problem of illegal fishing in Korean waters; this conflict could disrupt the integrity of the Exclusive Economic Zone and even undermine the friendly relations between the two countries. This article is to analyze the current status of the illegal Chinese fishing in the Yellow Sea and to provide a perspective on legal questions concerning the Korea-China Fishery Agreement to govern the fishery issue. This article suggests challenges ahead to solve the illegal fishing problem by examining factors causing the problem. It also provides a political perspective on the illegal fishing problem, which has become a highly newsworthy issue between Korea and China.

Resorting to targeted killings as a measure of counterterrorism spawned a debate on their legality under both international human rights law and humanitarian law. This article attempts to justify the measure under the current body of international humanitarian law. It also claims that discrete acts of targeted killings may be legal provided the existence of specific circumstances and conditions. These conditions, however, make it extremely difficult for a State to legally pursue ‘a policy’of targeted killings against alleged terrorists, unless they are considered‘ legal combatants.’The article criticizes the practice of labelling terrorists as ‘unlawful combatants’ unworthy of protections afforded by both international human rights law and international humanitarian law, and argues the lack of compelling legal arguments that would prevent terrorists from being considered as lawful combatants in an armed conflict. Light is also shed on the United States’recent expansion of the drone program in a way that might indicate a gradual acceptance of the terrorist-ascombatant theory.

It is generally accepted that China’s legislation including the provisions on enforcement of intellectual property rights has met the requirements of the TRIPS agreement and its government has exerted best efforts to enforce intellectual property laws, as illustrated by the institution of executive bodies, the dual-track approach system for protecting IPRs and other actions in this field. However, enforcement of IPRs is still a critical problem for China to solve because the protection standards of IPRs are beyond its economic development and education level, local protectionism interferes with enforcement, insufficient severity of punishment against infringers fails to deter, the price of genuine IP products is overinflated and a legal culture of not observing laws in China. To eliminate the roots of difficulties in enforcing IP laws, awareness of protecting IPRs and abiding by IP laws should be improved. Also, the IPR enforcement system should be further perfected by, centralizing the power of IPR enforcement by merging the current executive bodies into fewer ones with certain focuses, increasing the severity of punishment against infringers of IPRs and cracking down against local protectionism.

Many international judicial bodies have prescribed the procedures allowing NGOs to participate in the proceedings generally as non-parties as amicus curiae, expert or witness for the purpose of the good administration of justice. These possibilities are well developed in judicial bodies where the nature of proceedings concerns the issues that international law recognizes as the collective interests of the international community. In the International Court of Justice, on the contrary, NGOs do not have such possibility to make contributions as they have done in other international judicial bodies. The development of the elaboration of the texts on the Court proceedings and the restrictive interpretation of these texts reflect the restrictive approach of the Court towards NGOs’participation. The Court should offer the scope to access NGOs since they have legitimate right to represent the views of international civil society in an international democratic process and can contribute to assist the Court to protect the collective interest of the international community.

There have been at least twenty Summits among the ASEAN countries. They adopted about twenty basic legal documents. All these are dedicated to realizing the ambitious dream of the ASEAN countries to be developed. However, the facts went opposite. ASEAN cooperation stays slow and reaches a very narrow target. Most ASEAN people feel bored and hopeless over the state of cooperation. The slow and narrow cooperation have disposed the cooperation into a downfall image such as a fiction, or even a utopian. The downfall image could make cooperation even slower or end it altogether, as it commonly drives the belief of the people from trust to distrust and believing into disbelieving. The gap between the ‘sollen’and the ‘sein’in the cooperation shows a strong influence of undetectable causes. This article applies a law and ideological approach in searching and analyzing the cause of slowness of performance of the cooperation.

Cooperation between China and the ASEAN has become more integrated as their common economic interests have been increasing due to globalization and recent changes in Southeast Asia. The formation and operation of the CAFTA provide incentive for investment and trade between China and the ASEAN. The objective of laws regulating to investment should promote investment, which can be realized through a liberal, facilitative and transparent investment regime. The CAFTA’s investment regime continues along with the same trends of international investment agreements in general. However, in order to encourage regional integration, it needs to be improved in future practice.

As the ASEAN moves towards its vision of a ‘Community,’enforceability and consistency of legal standards, broadly the “rule of law,”have drawn attention due to their impact on the predictability of social environments, with consequences for markets, people, and policy makers. This paper draws together recent findings and suggests ASEAN States have made significant progress but remain in a state of transition. These findings support Barry Weingast’s prediction that developing countries are more likely to create consistent rules and move to“ open access orders” in line with requirements for development, rather than install artificial enforcement mechanisms before growth.

Although China and Vietnam are involved in both territorial and boundary disputes in the South China Sea, at present, managing the territorial dispute over the Spratly Islands is more significant than anything else. Analysis of the dispute based on international law, particularly on the ICJ case law, may help the two sides to manage their dispute in a new perspective and generate political willingness to negotiate the joint development area instead of the sovereignty over the islands. China’s policy that the joint development area around the disputed islands is negotiable is quite a positive signal for peace in the South China Sea and provides a practical basis for new negotiations between China and Vietnam.

The South China Sea has long been regarded as a major source of tension and instability in Pacific Asia. To clarify the position of claimants is a research task for creating the confidence building measures and promoting efforts to manage the possible conflicts in the region. The purpose of this article is to address the Vietnamese position on the sovereignty disputes over the Paracels and Spratlys, and maritime zones in the South China Sea. The Vietnamese position will be examined from three aspects: (1) the sovereignty of the Paracels and the Spratlys; (2) the maritime zones around these islands; and (3) the settlement of disputes in the South China Sea.

Article 24 of the Plant Variety and Plant Seed Act of Taiwan stipulates that rightholders have exclusive rights to import/export propagating materials, harvested materials and products made directly from the harvested materials of protected plant varieties. However, detailed provisions of border measures and enacting rules have not yet been written both in the Act and the associated enforcement rules. Although Taiwan and China have built a close relationship in agriculture and trade, tightening export suspension measures may serve as an effective means of preventing the agricultural counterfeit issue from worsening, and reduce the possibilities of illegal re-importation. China is the principal country to which plant materials from Taiwan and Japan are smuggled for further propagation and then shipped back to their original markets. Japan’s effective border measures for addressing plant variety right infringement and their PVP G-Men system could be a useful paradigm for Taiwan.

There has been a sudden surge in simultaneous legal disputes between Samsung and Apple in domestic courts of multiple States since 2011 concerning patent infringements involving their new digital products. The intensity of these confrontations between the two digital giants has come to exert significant influence over the lives of many people all over the world. In a sense, they are not competing to protect or increase the market share in a given domestic market, as other large corporations usually do; rather, they are now competing in a single, integrated global digital market where borders and boundaries have virtually disappeared. The emergence of the dominant digital entities is a showcase example of the increasing role of the MNCs in the international community, an issue that has already attracted a significant amount of attention from scholars of international law. At the same time, the unprecedented clash between the two corporations in multiple jurisdictions also raises an important issue of how conventional jurisdictional principles under international law are and will be implicated in this regard.